Re: [PATCH v4 17/39] unwind_user/sframe: Add support for reading .sframe headers

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:00:52AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:32 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static inline int sframe_add_section(unsigned long sframe_start, unsigned long sframe_end, unsigned long text_start, unsigned long text_end) { return -ENOSYS; }
> 
> nit: very-very long, wrap it?

That was intentional as it's just an empty stub, but yeah, maybe 160
chars is a bit much.

> > +       if (shdr.preamble.magic != SFRAME_MAGIC ||
> > +           shdr.preamble.version != SFRAME_VERSION_2 ||
> > +           !(shdr.preamble.flags & SFRAME_F_FDE_SORTED) ||
> 
> probably more a question to Indu, but why is this sorting not
> mandatory and part of SFrame "standard"? How realistically non-sorted
> FDEs would work in practice? Ain't nobody got time to sort them just
> to unwind the stack...

No idea...

> > +       if (!shdr.num_fdes || !shdr.num_fres) {
> 
> given SFRAME_F_FRAME_POINTER in the header, is it really that
> nonsensical and illegal to have zero FDEs/FREs? Maybe we should allow
> that?

It would seem a bit silly to create an empty .sframe section just to set
that SFRAME_F_FRAME_POINTER bit.  Regardless, there's nothing the kernel
can do with that.

> > +               dbg("no fde/fre entries\n");
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       header_end = sec->sframe_start + SFRAME_HEADER_SIZE(shdr);
> > +       if (header_end >= sec->sframe_end) {
> 
> if we allow zero FDEs/FREs, header_end == sec->sframe_end is legal, right?

I suppose so, but again I'm not seeing any reason to support that.

> > +               dbg("header doesn't fit in section\n");
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       num_fdes   = shdr.num_fdes;
> > +       fdes_start = header_end + shdr.fdes_off;
> > +       fdes_end   = fdes_start + (num_fdes * sizeof(struct sframe_fde));
> > +
> > +       fres_start = header_end + shdr.fres_off;
> > +       fres_end   = fres_start + shdr.fre_len;
> > +
> 
> maybe use check_add_overflow() in all the above calculation, at least
> on 32-bit arches this all can overflow and it's not clear if below
> sanity check detects all possible overflows

Ok, I'll look into it.

> > +struct sframe_preamble {
> > +       u16     magic;
> > +       u8      version;
> > +       u8      flags;
> > +} __packed;
> > +
> > +struct sframe_header {
> > +       struct sframe_preamble preamble;
> > +       u8      abi_arch;
> > +       s8      cfa_fixed_fp_offset;
> > +       s8      cfa_fixed_ra_offset;
> > +       u8      auxhdr_len;
> > +       u32     num_fdes;
> > +       u32     num_fres;
> > +       u32     fre_len;
> > +       u32     fdes_off;
> > +       u32     fres_off;
> > +} __packed;
> > +
> > +struct sframe_fde {
> > +       s32     start_addr;
> > +       u32     func_size;
> > +       u32     fres_off;
> > +       u32     fres_num;
> > +       u8      info;
> > +       u8      rep_size;
> > +       u16 padding;
> > +} __packed;
> 
> I couldn't understand from SFrame itself, but why do sframe_header,
> sframe_preamble, and sframe_fde have to be marked __packed, if it's
> all naturally aligned (intentionally and by design)?..

Right, but the spec says they're all packed.  Maybe the point is that
some future sframe version is free to introduce unaligned fields.

-- 
Josh